Red Tape And Picnicshttps://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com
Human Rights and Other IssuesMon, 19 Mar 2018 14:07:09 +0000enhourly1http://wordpress.com/https://s2.wp.com/i/buttonw-com.pngRed Tape And Picnicshttps://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com
Banks, Cluster Bombs and the Rare Argument for more Bureaucracyhttps://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/banks-cluster-bombs-and-the-rare-argument-for-more-bureaucracy/
https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/banks-cluster-bombs-and-the-rare-argument-for-more-bureaucracy/#respondSun, 21 Aug 2011 01:18:41 +0000http://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/?p=66Continue reading →]]>After being bailed out by the taxpayer, banks have been spending a lot of time (and money) to try and convince the public that they have a sense of moral and corporate responsibility. Natwest paraded people around the country and built a few cricket pavilions in the mantra of ‘helpful banking’. HSBC scoured the globe in order to become ‘The World’s Local Bank’. At the same time, Amnesty International has revealed that these two banks, as well as Lloyds TSB and Barclays have been investing in companies that manufacture cluster bombs.

The use and manufacture of cluster munitions are banned by the Convention of Cluster Munitions, adopted in 2008 and becoming international law in 2010. But the key sentence of the convention in relation to this blog is in Article 1 where it states that under no circumstances can a State part “Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.” When the convention was adopted into British Law there was no explicit law forbidding funding companies that manufacture cluster bombs thoygh assurances were given to ‘develop the most appropriate and effective measures to end indirect financing’.

It is high time that the premise of assurances was given up. Time and time again institutions and people disregard assurances because they are not binding, from the assurances given regarding tuition fees and bankers bonuses. Even the Prime Minister fell foul of assurances when Andy Coulson told him that he was unaware of the phone hacking that engulfed The News of The World. If the old adage is that rules are made to be broken than it means that the need is for legislation to be unbreakable.

This however is bureaucracy, something that Mr Cameron perceives to be the epitome of all that is wrong with the ‘big government’. Well when it suits him that is. When pressured on whether or not to form a judicial inquiry after the phone hacking scandal and the BSkyB bid his main defence was to hide behind the mantra of ‘due process’, or in other words, bureaucracy. Bureaucracy is an easy target to attack, it is ‘Brussels’, it is ‘health and safety’, it is ‘political correctness gone mad’, it is not fun. It is perhaps the case that one of the easiest reasons to attack bureaucrats is that they are anonymous, mere pencil pushers in sharp suits ruining the fun for everyone.

Bureaucracy is not designed to restrict freedoms but to safeguard them. The reason for rules and regulations are to prevent abuses of systems, be it medical, financial or judicial. Yet loopholes are regularly exploited, from tax evasion to the funding of weapons. The answer is not to remove the walls of red tape but to tighten it, much in the same way that the method to stop benefit fraud is not to dismantle the system but to better police it, the majority should not loose out because of the abuse by a minority. I’d rather have a system that leads to the abuse of benefits than one that allows the abuse of power.

When writing this blog I have to of course consider my choice of moniker. Admittedly I chose the name ‘Red Tape and Picnics’ more because I thought that’d sound cool and trendy rather than have a proper grown up political motive. I hope that it is an interesting juxtaposition, in Levi-Strauss circles I suppose that they’d be considered binary opposites, yet as they sit at the top of my page it is seemingly fitting, law and disorder combined. To continue and close with my picnic analogy I think the point is that you can have your cake and eat it.

Advertisements

]]>https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/21/banks-cluster-bombs-and-the-rare-argument-for-more-bureaucracy/feed/0thomasoneill1990Social Media and No Need For a Knee-Jerk Responsehttps://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/social-media-and-no-need-for-a-knee-jerk-response/
https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/social-media-and-no-need-for-a-knee-jerk-response/#respondThu, 11 Aug 2011 21:47:34 +0000http://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/?p=57Continue reading →]]>In an attempt to install confidence in the wake of England’s riots David Cameron implied that measures would be granted to restrict people’s use of social media when “we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality”.

Firstly, prohibiting social media in such a manner does not conflict with any human rights issues.Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK, said:

Apparently one of the newfangled technologies that caused all the chaos was the BlackBerry Messenger (BBM), now for those of you unaware of this thorn in the police’s side. It is a glorified texting service, that is all. If people did not have the BBM they would have used regular texting, as I’m sure many of them did, not every person has a BlackBerry. In the age of the mobile phone communication has become easier, unfortunately this makes organising riots easier. Yet there was no suggestion of calling for police to have the power to disrupt phone signals in times of emergency, that would be political suicide, social media is just an easy object to knock at this moment.

The point is, there is no necessity for any regulation or legislation. There are already laws in place regarding the incitement of violence and hatred. Thinking about it, social media is probably the best place for people to try and organise violence. The very nature of social media means that any plans and accomplices are firmly placed in the public forum. The authorities should be able to monitor these groups and tweets and act accordingly.

What worries me is where would this proposed ban on social media end? A search for “Plymouth” in Twitter showcased dozen’s of people threatening violence against those who rioted, all obvious acts of bravado with very little substance but still violent in nature. Are these people going to arrested as well? Paul Chamber’s was arrested in 2010 for jokingly tweeting that he was going to ‘blow Robin Hood airport sky high!”. He clearly wasn’t a terrorist threat and yet police time and resources were wasted in detaining and questioning him.

How many insincere calls to violence are there on the internet? Should we have to end each Facebook status or Tweet with ‘lol’ or ‘: p’ just to show the police that we really aren’t serious?

Advertisements

]]>https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/11/social-media-and-no-need-for-a-knee-jerk-response/feed/0thomasoneill1990After the Tottenham Riots – Fractures to fissures in ‘Broken Britain’https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/after-the-tottenham-riots-fractures-to-fissures-in-broken-britain/
https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/after-the-tottenham-riots-fractures-to-fissures-in-broken-britain/#respondSun, 07 Aug 2011 13:40:24 +0000http://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/?p=52Continue reading →]]>I doubt that when he envisaged the ‘Big Society’ David Cameron was wishing for the type of community action that took place in Tottenham on August 6th.

It seems that large scale public disturbances are becoming a trademark of his stewardship, from the violence at the University fees protests, to rioting in Bristol and now Tottenham. While these riots may be triggered by a single spark, they are the result of a cumulation of a sense of disenchantment, distrust and injustice. This generation is due to be worse off than the previous one and it is resulting in people looking for the chance to riot.

‘[Tottenham is a] short bus ride away from the fabulous wealth of the City, which is where I work, and where million pound bonuses continue to be dished out with the same regularity as P45s are handed to low-paid shopworkers’

The very nature of these riots portray the lack of focus behind the mob. The Tottenham riot stemmed from a protest against the police yet supermarkets, local businesses and buses were burnt. In Bristol the protests were against the establishment of another Tesco store, yet the police bore the brunt of the violence. In London, people were protesting the rise in tuition fees yet large corporations were amongst those targeted. Too many people are angry at too many things for cognitive and rational action to be taken, and general violence replaces peaceful protest.

I would like to close by condemning the very notion of rioting, at best they are counter-productive and at worst they are destructive.To attack people’s livelihoods and worse, their homes, is inexcusable. For every stone petrol bomb thrown, ammunition is given to your opponents to simply dismiss your opinions.

However, rather than merely dismissing the riots as ‘unacceptable’ the government should be listening to the public in order to find out why people are rioting. It is the perception that while benefits and welfare are being cut, that at a time where charities face funding slashes, Osborne’s plan to cut the 50p tax rate for those earning over £150,000 does little to convince people that we are ‘all in this together’.

Advertisements

]]>https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/after-the-tottenham-riots-fractures-to-fissures-in-broken-britain/feed/0thomasoneill1990The Death Penalty: An American Case Studyhttps://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/the-death-penalty-an-american-case-study/
https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/the-death-penalty-an-american-case-study/#respondThu, 04 Aug 2011 11:11:26 +0000http://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/?p=48Continue reading →]]>In the UK the issue of capital punishment has reared its ugly head again. The are corners which have called for its return to the UK justice system. This blog looks across the pond to argue against such an action.

If the model of capital punishment proposed in the UK bears any resemblance to that in America then prepare for a shockingly discriminatory system. Although half all of murder victims in America were white, over 75% of the murder victims in cases resulting in execution were white. In California you are three more times likely to receive the death penalty if your victim is white, in North Carolina you are 3.5 times more likely. In 96% of the states where there have been reviews of race and the death penalty patterns of either race-of-defendant or race-of-victim discrimination were found. The death penalty is a fallible and corruptible system, and worse, it is one where mistakes cannot be rectified.

I have trouble with the last argument as it seems callous and superficial, but I feel that it is a necessary to debunk another myth. It is to do with money. Quite simply the cost of death penalty cases far outstrip the cost of life imprisonment. Texas spends an average of $2.3 million dollars per death penalty case which is around three times more than the cost of imprisoning someone in a maximum security prison for 40 years.

The death penalty is an illogical, costly and morally bankrupt system that has failed to deter murder, thankfully even if the debate ever reaches Parliament, it will never be passed.

Advertisements

]]>https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/04/the-death-penalty-an-american-case-study/feed/0thomasoneill1990In response to Melanie Phillips: The importance of obsessivenesshttps://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/in-response-to-melanie-phillips-the-importance-of-obsessiveness/
https://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/2011/08/03/in-response-to-melanie-phillips-the-importance-of-obsessiveness/#respondWed, 03 Aug 2011 02:07:42 +0000http://redtapeandpicnics.wordpress.com/?p=43Continue reading →]]>To whomever has lived in the cave (or does not possess a twitter account). There is an ongoing feud between Sunny Hundal and Melanie Phillips, the former pointing out glaring holes in latter’s recent articles and the latter claiming that the former is ‘obsessive’ for doing so. This is a blog defending obsessiveness.

Melanie Phillips wields the word ‘obsessive’ with the intention to provoke harm. It is designed to paint the picture of someone who is anal, who is an outcast, in short, someone who is alone in their beliefs. It is a word derived from a world where obsessiveness is frowned upon. It is a use of the word to evoke the the dramatic fall of a character on stage, screen or page.

While obsessiveness may not be seen as a virtue in all walks of life in journalism it is a virtue, it is what drives research, spearheads campaigns, calls for change. It is this very obsession that creates experts. Here is a very mundane example, as illogical and unconnected to my life as it may be I am an avid Liverpool FC fan, I follow every transfer rumour, every fixture, every result. Does that make me obsessive? Probably. However let us consider the consequences of this obsession. I can bore my friends (and irritate those of them who support Man Utd) with stories and statistics and while this not have a great influence on how the world turns, it provides an ample point. Obsession breeds knowledge. Obsession is also necessary to drag issues kicking and screaming into the public consciousness. Looking at the phone hacking scandal and the ‘obsessive’ nature in which it was pursued by a happy few confirms this.

I have previously blogged about Melanie Phillips rhetoric and once again this saga reveals the very weakness in her writing. It is the failure to recognise the antithesis of her words that most irks me. If Sunny Hundal is ‘obsessive’ that what does imply about Melanie Phillips? Does it grant her a laissez faire attitude towards life? No, of course not, her very profession requires obsessiveness. In fact she is indulging in the carnal pleasure of obsession in responding to Sunny’s rebuttals. Without her own obsession the feud wouldn’t happen. It is the old adage, it takes two to tango.

Obsessiveness is merely a word that provides the catalyst for political debate. It should not be thrown around intentionally and irresponsibly as an attempt to dilute, diffuse or smear such debate.

On the 9th of July there were two marches. One was by the far-right English Defence League (EDL) protesting against the expansion of a local Mosque and a perception of an influx of Sharia Law. The second was by the self explanatory United Against Fascism (UAF) and billed itself as a “multicultural celebration of diversity”.

It is remarkably easy to explain the differences of atmosphere between the two protest. At 10:30am the UAF protest was in a buoyant mood, children, balloon hats and costumes created an air of festivities. At the same time the EDL were congregating and beginning to drink at a local pub. Here the atmosphere cannot be described as anything else but tense. A far larger police presence despite a considerably smaller turnout just shows that the reputation of violence that the EDL has earned precedes them. I was personally struck with the unwillingness that the members displayed in having their photograph taken or indeed to speak to me. Surely the point of a protest is to vocalize your message and the silence and glares that I was subjected to could only create an impression that what they wanted to say may not be palatable.

When speaking to the one EDL member that was willing to talk to me it becomes clear how confused and bigoted their beliefs are. On the aforementioned issue of the Mosque expansion the reason for opposition because ‘there aren’t enough Muslims’ to warrant it. Yet in the same breadth I was told about how Muslims and radicilastion were on the rise and how the country was being ‘Islamafied’.

Like most far-right organisations the EDL wastes little time before trying to paint itself as being victimised. Accusing the UAF of provoking violence against them with the only evidence being the ‘EDL go to hell’ chant that is used by the UAF. There is no mention of the ‘Burn the Mosque’ chants heard in Preston (youtube link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5dpcH2GNq0) and the chants ‘English until I die’ and ‘never surrender’ are antagonistic and sounds like they are seeking a fight. While the protests in Plymouth were peaceful there were reports in Cambridge that members of the EDL had begun fighting amongst themselves for lack of anyone else to fight.

While UAF certainly won the day on the basis of the body count, there is still work to be done. The majority of onlookers that I spoke to seemed to sympathise more with the EDL’s message the typical perception being that ‘they can say what they like about you but you can’t do the same’. This is of course untrue, every single citizen has to abide to anti-hate legislation and there have been cases of Muslim clerics being charged under these acts, most notably Abu Hamsa. Thankfully, while these people seemed to share some of the sentiments of the EDL they were dismissive of the group as a whole ‘it won’t work’ said one pensioner ‘they ask for too much out of hatred rather than sense’.

On the day though, it was undoubtably a victory for UAF and multiculturalism.

Sidenote: The majority of the photos accompanying this blog were taken by my house mate for which I am thankful. There should be some video footage coming out in the next couple of days as well.

However reports suggest that there are no details on the consequences of interference, nor does it include penalties to deter culprits. There are also other reports that seem to contradict the independence of the commission. It is reported that the Minister of Justice and the minister responsible for Finance will have some responsibilities pertaining to the hiring of staff. This brings the very idea of independence into disrepute, how can an organisation be truly independent when it’s employees are chosen by the government? This reduces transparency and will lead to calls of corruption.

Perhaps the most disturbing piece of the proposed bill is that it appears to grant impunity to any human rights offences that occurred pre 2009.

I will not name the person who committed the atrocities in Oslo, his name should be shunned and left to rot in the annals of history. In five, ten, twenty years time we should be remembering the victims and the families, not the man who tore them apart.

Nonetheless the connections and responses from the British right wing have provoked cause for concern. There are shades of Sarah Palin defending her rhetoric when Gabrielle Gifford was shot. Of course they are not to blame for the attacks, however there is a complete denial of any relation between the perpetuation of Islamaphobia.

I do not use this accusation lightly, the press is set on portraying the majority of terrorist attacks as being rooted in Islam. The Sun’s front page bore the words ‘Al-Qaeda Massacre’ despite this not being the case. In fact, in Europe in 2010, only 3 of 249 failed, foiled or completed terrorist attacks were associated with Islam. That is 1.205% of all attacks, and while the percentage of arrests is higher (29.3%), this is not the highest threat.

It transpires that the greatest terrorist threat to the citizens of Europe is through separatism. Of this 160 out of 249 (64.257%) attacks where stemmed from, similarly 57.119% of arrests fall into this category. Yet these statistics remained ignored in the press.

Melanie Phillips, was quoted in the Man from Oslo’s Manifesto. In her retort against criticism from the left she claimed that she was part of a “fight for life, liberty and western civilisation against those who would destroy it”. Here lies the problem, the rhetoric is antagonistic and dangerous. The implication is that anyone who disagrees with them does not merely have different beliefs but are also agents against life and liberty. It is an ‘us and them’ philosophy that counteracts the very foundation of multiculturalism and integration and further creates barriers.

It is of course unfair to single out Melanie Phillips as the sole inspiration behind the attacks. Her column was used once or twice in a 1500 page document and numerous other conservative commentators are quoted. But what rhetoric like the above does is create enemies in the mind. It is like having a voice in your ear whispering to you that the world is out to get you unless you stop it. There is in fact a condition like that, Paranoid Schizophrenia.

And while the majority of the population are able to see through the rhetoric as tools of speech and not instructions. There are always going to be those who use such writings to reinforce and exacerbate their own beliefs, and occasionally it ends in tragedy.